The Board has decided to remand the case for further development, including verifying whether the Veteran's cardiac surgeon was a VA employee and obtaining an addendum medical opinion regarding any additional pneumothorax or pleural effusion disability due to fault on VA's part.
The deciding factor: Further clarification is needed about Dr. Tobler’s status as a VA employee and an expert medical opinion is required to determine if the Veteran had any additional complications related to his surgery.
- Claimed conditions
- collapsed right lung, status post-operative pneumothorax, pleural effusion
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- October 7, 2020
- Citation
- 20065183
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 2,062 · Granted: 34% (granted or partly granted, in the vetted decisions on this site)
Judge attribution: 2025 complete; earlier years partial.
This is a plain-language summary generated by AI from a public Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision. It can contain errors — always verify against the original. Look up the original decision on VA.gov (opens in a new tab) using citation 20065183.
What this means for you
A remand is not a loss. The Board sent the case back for more development — often a new exam or missing records — before making a final decision. Many remands later end in a grant, and the decision spells out exactly what the Board wanted to see.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to deficiencies in the medical opinion provided, particularly regarding the relationship between the Veteran's respiratory disability and his exposure to jet fuel during service.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that VA examinations are required to determine if the Veteran's disabilities, including diabetes and neuropathy of various extremities, are at least as likely as not related to hazardous exposures during service. The issues of service connection for glaucoma secondary to diabetes are also remanded due to their inextricability with other claims.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to inadequate medical opinion and insufficient notice under 38 C.F.R. § 5104(b). The Veteran's eligibility for the PCAFC is being reviewed, but a new medical determination considering all medical information of record is needed.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's appeals for compensation under 38 U.S.C. 1151 for pleural effusion and embolism were dismissed due to the Veteran's death during the appeal process.
Free starter guide for your own claim
Reading this because you were denied or under-rated? Get the plain-English next steps — your appeal options, the deadline that protects you, and how appeals like yours turn out. One email, no spam.
We will only use this to send the guide. No spam, unsubscribe any time. We never sell your information.
We are not the VA. Veterans’ Rights is an independent resource built for veterans. We are not the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, not part of the government, and not endorsed by any government agency.
This is general information, not legal advice. For advice about your own situation, talk to a VA-accredited representative — many help for free.